The reconstruction of a stable, nipple-shaped cartilage graft that precisely matches the natural nipple in shape and size on the contralateral side is a clinical challenge. While 3D printing technology can efficiently and accurately manufacture customized complex structures, it faces limitations due to inadequate blood supply, which hampers the stability of nipple-shaped cartilage grafts produced using this technology. To address this issue, we employed a biodegradable biomaterial, Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), loaded with Cell-Free Fat Extract (Ceffe). Ceffe has demonstrated the ability to promote angiogenesis and cell proliferation, making it an ideal bio-ink for bioprinting precise nipple-shaped cartilage grafts. We utilized the Ceffe/PLGA scaffold to create a porous structure with a precise nipple shape. This scaffold exhibited favorable porosity and pore size, ensuring stable shape maintenance and satisfactory biomechanical properties. Importantly, it could release Ceffe in a sustained manner. Our in vitro results confirmed the scaffold\'s good biocompatibility and its ability to promote angiogenesis, as evidenced by supporting chondrocyte proliferation and endothelial cell migration and tube formation. Furthermore, after 8 weeks of in vivo culture, the Ceffe/PLGA scaffold seeded with chondrocytes regenerated into a cartilage support structure with a precise nipple shape. Compared to the pure PLGA group, the Ceffe/PLGA scaffold showed remarkable vascular formation, highlighting the beneficial effects of Ceffe. These findings suggest that our designed Ceffe/PLGA scaffold with a nipple shape represents a promising strategy for precise nipple-shaped cartilage regeneration, laying a foundation for subsequent nipple reconstruction.

UNASSIGNED: One of the key obstacles to the healing of diabetic wound is the persistence of active inflammation. We previously demonstrated the potential of cell-free fat extract (CEFFE) to promote the healing of diabetic wounds, and annexin A5 (A5) is a crucial anti-inflammatory protein within CEFFE. This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic potential of A5 in diabetic wounds.
UNASSIGNED: A5 was loaded into GelMA hydrogels and applied to skin wounds of diabetic mice in vivo. The diabetic wounds with the treatment of GelMA-A5 were observed for 14 days and evaluated by histological analysis. Accessment of inflammation regulation were conducted through anti-CD68 staining, anti-CD86 and anti-CD206 staining, and qRT-PCR of wound tissue. In presence of A5, macrophages stimulated by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in vitro, and detected through qRT-PCR, flow cytometry, and immunocytofluorescence staining. Besides, epithelial cells were co-cultured with A5 for epithelialization regulation by CCK-8 assay and cell migration assay.
UNASSIGNED: A5 could promote diabetic wound healing and regulate inflammations by promoting the transition of macrophages from M1 to M2 phenotype. In vitro experiments demonstrated that A5 exerted a significant effect on reducing pro-inflammatory factors and inhibiting the polarization of macrophages from M0 toward M1 phenotype. A5 significantly promoted the migration of epithelial cells.
UNASSIGNED: Annexin A5 has a significant impact on the regulation of macrophage inflammation and promotion of epithelialization.

Background: Previous studies showed Cell free fat extract (CEFFE) and Platelet rich plasma (PRP) could effectively accelerate wound healing. However, the comparative study on curative effect is still lacking. A systematic comparison could provide more theoretical support and laboratory basis for the clinical application of CEFFE and PRP. Objective: To compare the efficacy of CEFFE and PRP in promoting skin wound repair. Methods: CEFFE and PRP were prepared according to the literature. The wound repair related factors were measured and compared. In vitro, the effects of both on cell migration, proliferation and tube formation were compared. In vivo, wound healing rate was measured on the 1st, 3rd, 9th, and 12th days after skin injury and treatment. Then the specimens were cut off for histological analysis. Results: Although the total protein content of PRP was significantly around 19 times higher than that of CEFFE, there was no statistical difference in the content of BDNF, EGF and VEGF between CEFFE and PRP. Even the NT-3 content of CEFFE was just slightly higher than that of PRP. The concentration of b-FGF, HGF and TGF-β and PDGF-BB in PRP is higher than that in CEFFE, but there is only a very small difference between them. In vitro, PRP showed better efficacy than CEFFE in promoting fibroblast proliferation while there was no significant difference in promoting angiogenesis and fibroblast migration. Both PRP and CEFFE could significantly promote wound healing in mice. There was no statistical difference in wound healing between CEFFE and PRP groups in vivo. Immunohistochemical staining of Ki67&CD31 showed that there was no significant difference between PRP and CEFFE groups. Conclusion: The effect of PRP and CEFFE in promoting wound healing was similar. In clinical practice, the acquisition of PRP is relatively more convenient. Containing no cells, CEFFE has the advantage of easier preservation. For patients who have discarded adipose tissue, or contraindications to PRP technology, CEFFE technology may provide a new option for skin wound repair.